nanog mailing list archives
Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses
From: Mike Hughes <mike () smashing net>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:17:23 +0000 (GMT)
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Alexander Koch wrote:
I know the changes the LINX has implemented, and I am curious... and this might affect other folk as well. What is better - the LINX approach (blocking the port, trying again in x minutes when too many MACs were seen) or the Equinix approach (we hardcode your MAC per VLAN/ per port if untagged, all else we just drop)?
Much of a muchness really. With the former approach, it's easier for the participants to effect changes to their IX equipment without having to ask the IX operator to clear the locking/reconfigure the static MAC. The protection against badness is pretty equal, whatever you do. Cheers, Mike
Current thread:
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses, (continued)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 11)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Randy Bush (Nov 11)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Mike Hughes (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Steven Bakker (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Lincoln Dale (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses sthaug (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Randy Bush (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Mike Hughes (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Niels Bakker (Nov 11)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Alexander Koch (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Mike Hughes (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Blaine Christian (Nov 10)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Arnold Nipper (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Steven Bakker (Nov 09)